Battle against AI Misinformation

Why in News?

India is pursuing its Viksit Bharat 2047 vision with Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a central pillar. India co-chaired the AI Action Summit in Paris (2025).  

However, the rise of advanced generative AI tools is capable of producing realistic images, videos, voice clones and documents, which has intensified concerns regarding misinformation, identity theft, cyber fraud and manipulation of public discourse. 

This raises a question: What will be India’s policy with reference to rapidly developing AI tools?  

What is AI-Generated Misinformation?

• AI-generated misinformation refers to false, manipulated or misleading content created using Artificial Intelligence systems.
• Such content may include:
  • Deepfake videos
  • AI-generated news articles
  • Synthetic voice cloning
  • Fake academic documents
  • Manipulated photographs
  • Fabricated research papers
  • AI-generated social media campaigns

Modern generative AI systems can now create highly realistic outputs that closely resemble genuine human-created content. Given India’s explosive internet growth from 250 million to over 1 billion users in under a decade, and persistently low digital literacy, the consequences are severe and systemic.

Key dimensions of AI-Driven Misinformation:

• Informational Harm: Modern generative AI can fabricate newspaper-style reports, scientific research papers, and mark sheets with near-perfect authenticity. AI-generated misinformation creates a “liar’s dividend” situation where authentic photographs and documents themselves risk dismissal as fabricated. This corrodes journalism, academia, and institutional accountability.
• Identity Theft and Personality Rights: Proliferation of AI-powered voice cloning, face-swapping, and image synthesis has multiplied identity-based cybercrimes. India, however, lacks a dedicated statutory framework for personality rights.
• Legal and Judicial Integrity: Courts have recorded a worrying trend of lawyers submitting AI-generated pleadings and citations that are entirely fabricated. As AI tools proliferate, maintaining the factual integrity of judicial proceedings becomes a challenge.
• Financial and Security Dimensions: India has witnessed a surge in AI-assisted frauds, including “digital arrest” scams where criminals deploy deepfake video calls impersonating police or regulatory officials to extort payments from low-literacy users.
• Electoral and Political Risks: AI-generated audio deepfakes of political leaders and synthetic viral videos pose acute risks to electoral integrity. Election Commission of India currently relies on existing MCC guidelines and voter education rather than dedicated deepfake regulation.

India’s Regulatory Response: IT Amendment Rules, 2026: 

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026. 

This represents India’s first comprehensive statutory framework specifically addressing synthetically generated content, and constitutes a significant structural reform of intermediary liability.

• Synthetically Generated Information (SGI) defined: The Amendment introduces a statutory definition of SGI covering audio, visual, or audio-visual content that is artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified, or altered using computer resources. This includes deepfakes, voice clones, and AI-fabricated video.
• Mandatory Labelling and Metadata Traceability: Any intermediary enabling the creation or dissemination of SGI must now require users to declare whether their content is AI-generated. Visual SGI must include a visual label; audio SGI must carry an audio disclosure.
• Reduced Takedown Timelines:
  • Illegal content identified by courts or government bodies must be removed within 3 hours (reduced from 24-36 hours). 
  • Non-consensual sexual deepfakes and other SGI violating personal privacy must be removed within 2 hours of being reported. 
  • User grievances filed personally must be resolved within 36 hours. 
  • These timelines apply to all significant social media intermediaries (SSMIs): platforms with over 5 million users.
• Safe Harbour: Intermediaries that host SGI without verifying declarations or attaching required labels risk losing safe harbour protection entirely, exposing them to both civil and criminal liability. 

Broader Policy Ecosystem: 

• India AI Governance Guidelines (2025): Issued under the IndiaAI Mission, these guidelines are non-binding in nature but provide a foundational reference for future regulation. Proposed institutional mechanisms include an inter-ministerial AI Governance Group, a Technology and Policy Expert Committee, and an IndiaAI Safety Institute for monitoring and capacity building.
• Digital India Act (Forthcoming): The proposed Digital India Act, in draft since 2023, is expected to replace the IT Act, 2000 and introduce risk-based classifications for digital platforms, enhanced intermediary obligations, content accountability requirements, and specific provisions for AI and emerging technology, including deepfake regulation and algorithmic transparency. Public consultation is anticipated in 2026.
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: The DPDP Act governs the collection, storage, and processing of personal data by “data fiduciaries,” providing a framework that overlaps with AI misuse involving personal information, including biometric data used to train deepfake systems. 
• Sector-Specific Frameworks: 
  • The RBI’s 2025 framework on responsible AI in finance and the SEBI consultation paper on AI in securities markets together address AI risk in systemically important sectors. 
  • Ministry of Health and Family Welfare launched the SAHI (Strategy for Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare for India) framework, adding healthcare to the sector-specific regulatory perimeter.

Gaps, Criticisms & Challenges: 

• Absence of a Dedicated AI Act: Despite the 2026 IT Rules amendment and sector-specific frameworks, India still lacks a comprehensive, dedicated AI Act comparable to the EU AI Act. The existing approach remains fragmented across the IT Act, consumer protection law, tort law, and sector-specific regulations. This creates jurisdictional ambiguity and enforcement gaps.
• Operational Feasibility of Takedown Timelines: Critics argue that the 3-hour and 2-hour removal mandates may incentivise over-removal of borderline content, chilling legitimate speech and satire. The absence of clear technical standards or platform-provided AI detection tools creates compliance uncertainty.
• Digital Literacy Deficit: India has over 700 million rural citizens who cannot access AI’s benefits, are disproportionately vulnerable to SGI-based scams, and lack the tools to critically evaluate synthetic content. 
• Personality Rights and IP Lacunae: India has no codified personality rights framework, leaving celebrities and ordinary citizens alike dependent on expensive, slow High Court litigation. Clarity on who owns AI-generated content (developer, user, or no one) also remains unresolved, complicating intellectual property enforcement.
• Enforcement Capacity: India’s cyber law enforcement infrastructure, including the Cyber Crime Cells and the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), faces significant capacity constraints in detecting, attributing, and prosecuting AI-enabled offences at scale. 

Way Forward:

• Comprehensive AI regulation law that differentiates between high-risk and low-risk AI applications, mandates transparency, and provides clear liability norms without stifling innovation.
• A sector-specific code of ethics for AI platforms must be developed to prevent the generation of content that undermines trust in democratic institutions, digital news ecosystems, and the judicial process. 
• Enact Personality Rights Legislation to address the growing misuse of AI in fabricating content involving real individuals.
• Developing digital and AI literacy through mass public awareness campaigns, media literacy programmes, and fact-checking ecosystems.
• International Cooperation: India must engage actively in multilateral frameworks (including with the G20, UNESCO, and GPAI) to harmonise AI governance standards. 

India, therefore, faces the dual responsibility of becoming an AI innovation leader while simultaneously safeguarding the authenticity and credibility of its digital ecosystem.  

PDF